Ethnicity and Race - What's the Difference?

Human beings have an inherent or a cultivated tendency to classify objects, events, and people that they associate with either directly in their daily lives or indirectly. These classifications form an impression and a standard through which people perceive others and themselves (Santos & Uma ñ a-Taylor, 2015). Ethnic identity is deeply entrenched in the society such that it makes us accept or even worse reject other people because of their ethnic identity. So what is ethnic identity? Ethnic identity can be understood to mean a distinction or classification or belonging to one group that can identify itself separately from others based on its cultural identity, language, body pigmentation, geographical location, religion or any other identity that makes it unique (Santos & Uma ñ a-Taylor, 2015). Let us get out of ethnic identity for a moment and use an artificial example to expand on the point; chairs are simply chairs used for sitting and nothing more. However, chairs are not all the same; they differ in color, shape, size, and material. These differences create a class that goes as far as determining how one chair is compared to another with considered as seen in human life (Albert, Schneeweis, & Knobbe, 2005). People are classified although we are all human beings. The classes define how people relate, perceived, and treated and so on and people cling to their identity such that others get offended when their identity is attacked. 

Theories 

Theories have been advanced to explain the concept of ethnicity. It is important to note that the theories are ideals and that one theory may not fit in all situations. However, there is also the tendency for a theory to lean on one understanding of ethnicity. Three theories will be discussed herein, and examples used to illustrate the concepts that they propose. The theories are Primordial, constructivism, and circumstances. These theories attempt to provide a rule of thumb used in explaining or answering the fundamental questions such as the nature of ethnicity, whether ethnicity is inherited or constructed, what determines ethnic affiliations, or simply what is the foundational basis of ethnic identity (Yang, 2000). 

Primordial 

The primordial’s view of ethnicity is very specific and fixed. A primordial view of ethnicity is built on primordial ties such as common ancestry. To a primordial, one belongs to an ethnic group because they were born in that group, they share a common ancestor, and therefore one cannot change their identity because once born into that ethnic group always a member of that ethnic group. For example, if one is born a Chinese, he/she will remain a Chinese forever no matter where he goes or the new cultures or languages he learns. His fate is fixed as a Chinese (Yang, 2000; Kaufmann, 2012). 

There are conflicting opinions among primordial adherents. One faction emphasizes the socio-biological identity as illustrated above based on the birth of an individual while another class holds that cultural heritage should be accorded the primary focus; that is by virtue that one has inherited a culture he falls into that ethnic identity forever (Yang, 2000; Kaufmann, 2012). The cultural identity adherents are quite a diversion from the socio-biological adherents. In case cultural identity is used as a mark of one’s ethnic identity, it is possible to belong to any group. People learn and share cultures and in a global world like today where people interact and borrow from each other online, cultural identities are becoming eroded. 

The Constructivist Thought 

The constructivist thought is opposed to the primordial view of ethnic identity regarding the origin of ethnic identity and its extent or its boundary. To a constructivist, ethnic identity is a mere construction. It is something that can be created by a particular people and thus is not linked to birth or even inherited from ancestors (Chandra, 2012). Secondly, the constructivist holds that the boundaries of ethnic identity can be moved. This is different from the primordial concept, which held that ethnicity is fixed. Finally, this theory postulates that ethnic identity is malleable and thus can be changed or fixed based on environmental changes. These principles suggest a society that can transform from generation to generation and that ethnicity is identified as a collection of principles rather than one's body pigmentation or simply birth identity (Yang, 2000). 

The school of thought also holds diverse perspectives. For instance, the emergent ethnicity perspective discredits the significance of cultural heritage. It postulates an emergent phenomenon where structural forces in society inspire and reinforce ethnic identities (Yang, 2000). For example, a group of Italians, Chinese, Jews, and African-Americans migrating into an industrializing suburb will be compelled to live within the same environment, share the same institutions, work opportunity, transport system, and many other facilities and opportunities. These people will end up forming a cultural identity that is identical to their new way of life by trying to strengthen their kinship and friendship ties. Thus, a new culture will result that is wholly different from the initial culture that these people held before they moved into this new location. 

Another school of thought within the constructivism theory proposes the concept of ethnicization. In such a case, ethnicity is ascribed to others by either the government, school, church, media, immigrants, or natives. As a result, the response of adversity such as hostility, prejudice, hardship, and discrimination characterize it. As a result, people come up with an ethnic identity for being classified by outsiders who discriminate, reject, or become hostile to them (Yang, 2000). Therefore, they conglomerate around a unit that makes them feel safe, which eventually results in the formation of new ethnic identity. 

Another school proposes the concept of resurgent ethnicity, which proposes that people realign themselves to their original cultural identities. For example, after suffering a loss in some of their cultural elements due to intermarriages and loss of language among other elements, white Americans began to trace their original identity and align themselves along these cultural identities (Yang, 2000; Chandra, 2012). However, this is merely symbolic. In essence, it is difficult to recollect a culture that has been eroded for over 100 years as it is to proceed with the current culture. Therefore, it comes as a psychological denial by people who hold to this thought, that they have lost important of their culture and thus they are not what they use to be. 

The last school in the constructivist theorists are rather conserved holding to the true meaning of the constructivist ideals. These proponents emphasize the role of people in creating their ethnic identity, their power of internal forces and external forces in shaping and reshaping ethnic identity and a rebuke to the primordial’s view of inherited fixed culture that they deem as being irrational (Posner, 2004). Thus, this theory places power in the people and events as the determinant of culture and that culture is malleable to changes and thus progressive. 

Circumstances 

The proponents of the theory believe that the surrounding circumstances shape people’s ethnic identity. Instead of informing the coming together of a group to form an ethnic identity, the groups of an existing ethnic identity reshape their values, practices and other elements based on the environment they find they find themselves in. What inspires this kind of adjustment is the favorableness of a new environment (Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001). For example, a group of immigrants entering the United States will respond in this new environment based on how the host receives them. If the group is received violently, they may choose to abandon their cultural values that are objected and adopt those of the host to gain favor. In contrast, they will hold firm to their initial cultural practices forming strong identity and self-esteem if the immigrants are welcomed well. Therefore, the experiences affect their productiveness in this new area. 

This ideology is related to the instrumentalist school of thought. The instrumentalist adherents hold that an ethnic group will choose only those elements of culture or their identity that are productive or useful to survival under special circumstances such as politics and economic wellbeing (Yang, 2000). Thus, unfavorable features of the culture are discarded as the situation will dictate. Thus, cultures are only held. They owe their existence to their ability to minimize the cost of tolerating them and maximizing the income to be gained from their principles. Thus, a culture may shift or be modified, discarded, or improved from time to time. This implies that older cultures may be readopted as circumstances will deem fit; culture is not as rigid as others may propose. 

The Relationship between Ethnicity and National Identity 

Unlike ancient times, nations have become multiethnic as people migrate and settle in new places across the globe. Some of the factors promoting multi-ethnicity include technological advances, globalization, and political factors such as wars that cause immigration and economic factors such as commerce and the quest for education. Therefore, there are various levels of interactions within a nation: ethnic levels and national level. One might be interested in how these various interfaces interact to promote a harmonious coexistence among these communities. Take a case of a multiethnic nation like America: will a white American reject an African-American, or Latin-American, or Asian-American because they are a minority group? Will these groups considered minority contribute positively to the economic development in a nation that they are rejected and maligned? Besides, how will the political climate of such a polarized nation be? Similarly, will a Jewish oriented Israel despise its citizens of Arab origin? These factors may appear simple, but they have huge economic and political consequences, as the following discussion will show. The interaction interfaces will be discussed by using America as a case study. The relationship between ethnicity and nationality can be discussed under three paradigms: the melting pot, the pluralist model, and the general group dominance model ( Sidanius & Petrocik, 2000 ) 

Melting Pot Ideology 

When people move into a new country, they face the challenge of either adopting the new culture that confronts them or sticking to their culture. A similar struggle was witnessed in America in the era of “Americanization.” In this age, every immigrant, particularly those from Europe were expected to adopt all elements of the American culture into their way of life ( Sidanius & Petrocik, 2000). This was rather rigid and obscene to some. This ideology was broken and rather a more flexible era was introduced, the era of “melting pot ideology.” In this era, immigrants and American inhabitants coexisted harmoniously without placing high expectations on the immigrants to adopt the American way of life., instead, an open platform was arranged upon which immigrants and local citizens interacted freely, borrowed from each other in areas such as religion, marriage, and way of life. The ideology was motivated by the appreciation of what other people can offer for America ( Sidanius & Petrocik, 2000 ). This is similar to the allegory used to define it whereby a strong pot melts representing the melting of cultures as they interact. In the end, it led to the loss of cultural identity at the ethnic and national level. 

Pluralist Model 

The pluralist model emphasizes the significance of maintaining one's ethnic identity. As opposed to the melting pot ideology, African Americans, Latin Americans, and the whites interact together with other cultures yet still manage to preserve their ethnic identity and maintain national unity. The proponents of this ideology still held firmly to the hope that this way of organization would still be beneficial to the peaceful coexistence of the American identity ( Sidanius & Petrocik, 2000). The ideology inspired the civil rights movements, which saw the blacks and other minority groups struggle for equal rights with the white ethnic group. Perhaps, the melting pot ideology would have been more productive to the American culture given the polarized nature of the country. The pluralist ideology sounds an effective tool of breaking hardcore lines that create distinction and class by allowing people to interact with and appreciate the cultural diversity in the society. This would have created a shared America where everyone’s contribution is appreciated. Therefore, this model proposes that ethnic identity can be maintained at the ethnic levels as the ethnic groups work together in forging a shared national identity. 

General Group Dominance Model 

The theory holds that pluralism and the melting pot ideologies cannot explain the minute differences that occur at the ethnic levels; the elements can only find their explanation by relating them to dominance ( Sidanius & Petrocik, 2000 ). This ideology recognizes the differences that exist between ethnic groups and that they must be recognized when ethnic groups align themselves in a hierarchical format. Moreover, the group occupying the highest position receives added advantages such as power, wealth, education, health services. In contrast, the lowest group receives poor quality services and materials ( Sidanius & Petrocik, 2000 ). This ideology has received a wide application in the American land where whites were given more power and privileges claiming that they strove for the liberties that are now enjoyed by others and that this privilege will remain forever ( Sidanius & Petrocik, 2000 ). 

Subsequently, the model emphasizes the differences in ethnic identity and the role it plays in the national platform. Ethnic identity is real at the lower and national levels such that it determines the political, social, and economic affairs of involved parties. The two former ideologies focus on minimizing or r removing ethnic differences at the national level. The dominance group model is very polarized as compared to the pluralism model and can contribute to ethnic segregation and bitterness if propagated fully in a society such as it has been in American history. However, the melting pot ideology can be very productive in promoting unity and national identity that is productive to the coexistence in a nation. Therefore, the connection between ethnicity and national identity can assume varied forms based on the ideology that is held in a nation. 

Difference between Race and Ethnicity 

For some, the terms race and ethnicity bear the same meaning. However, this is not the case especially after considering the two terms closely. The term "race" has been used and is still used to distinguish humanity in research works, government activities, and other events. To some, the term race bears a negative impression especially when matters of dominance are attached to the discussion. Nonetheless, the term is still significant and is essential when it comes to diagnosing and prescribing medications in health sciences, which is an interesting study for another time (Santos, Palomares, Normando, & Quint ã o, 2010). 

The term “race” was used more forcible by the scientist, the taxonomist, Carolus Linnaeus who used it to classify the human family into four major races; Homo sapiens americanus, Homo sapiens europaeus, homo sapien asiaticus and Homo sapiens africanus and the fifth race Homo sapiens monstraeus (Santos et al., 2010). Blumenbach and Harris further advanced the term as they developed the concept of racial classification and more importantly that of the crossbreeds. This kind of classification was based largely on the morphological features observed in the different groups of human origin (Santos et al., 2010). Therefore, the use of race in classification can be seen to be beneficial for classification and should not be given much hype seeing that everyone falls in a particular race. 

The advances made in human genome studies further complicate the subject of racial classification. In racial classification, as noted above, groups are identified by the morphological structure predominant to each group. These structures may include features such as the nose, eye, skin color, and hair texture. However, looking into the human genome, these observable features are defined by very few genes totaling a difference of 0.005% (Santos et al., 2010). Thus, from a biological view, the subject of race may altogether be thrown away as inexistent, and this point is agreed on by an array of anthropologists and experts in genetics. 

The difference between race and ethnicity is very sublime and yet profound in definition and practice. Ethnicity is derived from the Greek word “Ethnikos” which means “heathen” (Santos et al., 2010). According to the concept of ethnicity as already seen in the preceding paragraphs, classifies people on more than just their color but also the culture, language, religions, shared territory, and other features. Besides racial classification, there are 65 Indian ethnic groups in Brazil. The indigenous people belong to a particular Indian racial identity. Thus, the ethnic categorization creates even finer classes in a group that identifies itself as belonging to one race (Santos et al., 2010). It is therefore even possible to classify a dominant race further to include minute subgroups within the larger group. 

It is evident that the difference between race and ethnicity is broad. For instance, scholars disagree on whether race is existent or not. Secondly, the difference in the number of genes that distinguishes one "race " from another is so small (0.005%) that it becomes illogical, and absurd to say that this race is different from the other as it is to classify two people from the same race as different because they have an insignificant difference in the size of their eyes. Finally, the ethnic classification is real and solid. It is impossible to dispute that people have a different religion, speak a different language, have a different culture, and come from different kinship. Thus, race and ethnicity are as different as the sun is from the moon and day from the night; indisputable. 

The conclusion leaves us with one unavoidable conclusion, that race is a construct for the reasons stated above and especially that it cannot be proved to exist by genetics; a modern technology that is highly reliable. This ideology can be very controversial should it be proposed on a wider scale. The worshipers of race and its value would not see their monument fall without a struggle. Race and all its constructs can be seen as an effective tool for segregation and exploitation. Therefore, it is possible to see that what other races considered minor might have occurred because they have been subjected to centuries of discrimination, exploitation and other forms of evils that only history can tell. The effect of race and other forms of classification that are domineering in nature have been productive of violence in the human race as minority races strive to deliver themselves from their perceived oppressors. The impact and connection of ethnicity and civil wars will be discussed in detail under the annotated bibliography. 

The concept of race gets even more complicated when considering hybrids resulting from a white and Latino intermarriage. Categorization of such individuals into a racial group can be very challenging and nearly impossible. To classify that person as a Latino will be deemed as derogative by some quota and classifying such a person as a white will be deemed as elevating by another quota and may arouse some emotions. This classification is even made simpler possible when classifying the individual into a particular ethnic group since they will have a language they speak, a culture, a religion, and a kinship tie. 

Political Consequences of Ethnic Identity 

A nation’s ethnic identity has always been directly linked to peace and national unity, especially if this ethnic identity is the focus of political mobilization. Events in Rwanda, Ireland and Ukraine are just but a few of the common examples of the detrimental effect ethnic identity has on the nation and the associated circumstances. These circumstances have motivated world leaders to seek effective ways to manage and ultimately end conflicts that r arise because of ethnic diversity (Caselli & Li, 2006). Several nations and states, such as Afghanistan, Spain, and Bulgaria, have even implemented laws that seek to ban the formation of religious and ethnic parties. In addition, countries like Papua New Guinea have reformed their electoral system to reassure the election of moderate rather than radical leaders. Nonetheless, the overall effectiveness of any of these conflict management tools leaves a lot to be desired.

Ethnic identity has always been a tool used to contest for resources and amass power rather than a source of diversity. Ethnic identity clearly delineates between those included in power and those who are left out directly because of their ethnic background. In Africa, leaders have been known to take advantage of the ethnic diversity and have been the leading cause of political conflict because of ethnic hostilities (Kukic, 2016). Granted ethnic identity in global political activities is demonstrated in several abstract and concrete forms. The true significance of ethnic identity is evident in that it directly affects global events and hinders attempts at positive international relationships. Due to its dysfunctional and destabilizing effect, ethnic identity has a natural propensity to over-emphasize on its ability to generate conflict from negative ethnic identity (Molina, Nia, & Sidanius, 2015).

The approach serves its purpose in underlining what on the surface appears to be the more noticeable characteristics of ethnic identity. However, it has an inclination to overlook the immense potential through cooperation as a direct result of positive ethnic identity. Therefore, the increased tendency of ethnic and racial identities in the determination of political outcomes relates to ignored ethnic complaints, land rights, biological preconceptions, and fight for the ability to access valued assets and amassing power (Caselli & Li, 2006).. Ethnicity in the political arena only offers them an opportunity to emphasize their proprietorship, or entire lack of it. Nonetheless, ethnic individualities have been used undesirably by invading forces for the purpose of colonization and becoming dominant elites in the post-colonial nation (Kalyvas, 2005). In contrast, ethnic identities may possibly be used to develop a worldwide identity, as is the case for patriotism in the search for a shared national identity both in Africa as a whole.

Nations within the continent of Africa have are tasked with managing ethnic identity discrepancies that appear in politics. However, it should be accomplished without infringing on anyone’s human rights, as well as ensuring equal rights to use and benefit from a countries resources, impartiality, and right to citizenship. Neo-colonialism also has an undesirable effect on ethnic identities and result in conflicts as a response to this external influence (Kukic, 2016). During the Cold War, quite a few African leaders were blindly offered help that gave them a complete authority to be able to use their respective countries ethnic diversity to their advantage, which often leads to inter-ethnic cases of violence. In the 1980s, the ability of African countries to deliver viable services deteriorated even more as a direct result of the pressure from the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) during restructurings. As a result, widespread resistance movements broke out in most African nations to protest the adversities effected by the application of reforms on their respective ethnic identities (Kalyvas, 2005). Therefore, people of the same ethnic groups form movements to take advantage of the situation and challenge their leaders for absolute control.

Annotated Bibliography 

This section will review six literature materials that shade light on the connection between ethnic identity and civil wars. Rather than review individual civil wars, this section will look into factors within ethnic classes that influence the choice of engaging in a civil war. 

Kalyvas, S. N. (2005). Ethnic defection in the civil war: prepared for the presentation at the Conference on Alien Rule and its Discontents. The University of Washington , pp. 1-25. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2018, from http://faculty.washington.edu/hechter/KalyvasPaper.pdf 

Kalyvas builds on the constructivist theory of ethnic formation. The paper considers how civil wars result in ethnic defection. He proposes that ethnic defection may not be an instantaneous event occurring immediately at the start of the civil war, but a process that accumulates its force overtime depending on the advantages enjoyed by the parties at war and the gravity of the war; that these two factors inform the direction of defection. The paper, rather than insist that people have to change their ethnic identity in the face of a civil war, proposes an alternative behavior which is aligning ones interest with the side that favors them. The paper is founded on two postulations; first, ethnic defection is driven by demand rather than supply. Therefore, the resources at the disposal of the incumbent determine which side they will defect to. Secondly, defection is endogenous to civil war and not exogenous, that is collaboration structures are overridden by factors that are taking place inside the civil war that may motivate a defection. Countries like Kenya, Greece, and Algeria among others are used as illustrations to support these proposals. The article is important to this study because it endorses the circumstantial theory. 

Kukic, L. (2016). The Last Yugoslavs: Ethnic Diversity, National Identity, and Economic Outcomes . LSE. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2018, from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/KUKIC/Kukic_LastYugoslavs.pdf 

Kukic reviewed the Bosnian war of 1992-1995. In this paper, he attempts to demonstrate that a reinforced national identity has the power to mitigate in case of a threatening civil war. He notes, especially, that a more diverse Yugoslavia stood a chance to withstand the impending conflict that drug the nation to a civil war. In his arguments, he suggests that a more diverse ethnic society is strengthened by intermarriages which bring a restriction on how relations involving war can be engaged in. Kukic also argues that factors determining nationality and favorable relations between ethnic groups are endogenous. He further argues that policies shape how ethnic groups relate and thus there is a political consequence of falling into this or that ethnic group. The paper recommends a policy encouraging intermarriage to foster natural ties and avoid conflicts. The paper sees this as the most appropriate option for the European continent witnessing an influx of refugees. He concludes that the road to a world without conflict is the road without ethnicity. This paper augments the power of ethnic differences and unity in the event of a looming civil war. 

Caselli, F., & Li, W. J. C. (2006). On the theory of ethnic conflict (No. w12125). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. w12125. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=893780 Retrieved Oct. 7, 2018, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12125.pdf 

Caselli and Li provide useful details on the reasons why ethnic cocoons enter into conflicts and why they refrain at some point. The paper notes that ethnic conflicts occur along religion, pigmentation, language, and even body size. The authors suggest that the losing side often opts to pass as the winning side to maintain the power equilibrium. The paper notes that conflicts are often caused by strong ethnic identity, and in order to minimize ethnic conflicts, these identities must be broken down through modernization and equal distribution of resources. The main factor for civil wars is an elevation of one ethnic group above another and the preemptive nature of smaller groups to attain a higher standard which causes the dominant group to be on the defensive. The article is useful to this study since it gives more information on the dynamics of civil wars between dominant and subordinate ethnic groups. It emphasizes the group dominance model discussed above whereby the powerful group enjoys higher privileges as compared to the lower groups. 

Cederman, L., E., Wimmer, A. & Min, B. (2010). Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis. World Politics , 62(1): 87-119. 

Cederman, Wimmer, and Min (2010) researched the relationship between ethnic demographics changes and civil war. The paper concludes that there is a weak link between changes in the ethnic demographic features and civil war. Nonetheless, the paper suggests that there is a great likelihood of civil war occurring in a society where there are two or more ethnic groups with an averagely similar size. Thus, the paper suggests that other salient factors contribute to civil wars and not the simple concept of ethnic diversity. This paper is important to this research as a dissenting paper on the impacts of ethnic identity to cause a civil war. By concluding that there is a weak link between the two, the reader will consider other factors that may lead to a civil war. 

Molina, L. E., Nia P. L., & Sidanius, J. (2015). National and ethnic identity in the face of discrimination: Ethnic minority and majority perspectives. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2), 225-236 

The article contradicts the notion that individuals of an ethnic origin have an inbuilt ability, a perfect ability, to profile strangers into their correct and accurate ethnic groups and respond to this information by making crucial decisions on how to react by collective action. The paper argues that this ability is not inherent and that it varies with individuals thus determining their actions. This view explains the significance of individual choice even in a strong ethnic community. It proposes the possibility of some members of a group to descent and does contrary to the collective action taken by their ethnic group. The article is important to this research since it offers more insight on how personal understanding and perception of a foreign ethnic group determines inclinations taken during civil wars. 

Denny, E. K., & Walter, B. F. (2014). Ethnicity and civil war.  Journal of Peace Research, 51 (2), 199-212. 

Denny and Walter (2014) made important claims about the origin, sustenance, and management of civil wars. The paper proposes that civil wars in a state are more likely to be caused by ethnic groups. Secondly, it argues that this phenomenon is largely possible because ethnic groups have an easier time organizing for a civil war and initiating it due to their common understanding and group notion. The paper suggests that ethnic groups organizing and conducting civil wars have a difficult time agreeing on terms to conclude the war due to inherent differences within the group. The article attributes the existence of civil war to power distribution along ethnic lines with a dominant group domineering. This paper is important to the research paper as it adds more insight into the circumstances surrounding a civil war resulting from ethnic group arrangements. 

Conclusion 

Ethnic identity influences the way we perceive ourselves, our surroundings, the past, present, and the future. Ethnic ties are more of a defense mechanism and a struggle to find where to belong. Everyone belongs to at least one ethnic group. The impacts of ethnic affiliations are so deep that they determine political alignments and stability as witnessed in civil wars. Theorists have advanced several theories to elaborate on the formation, sustenance and the impacts of ethnic affiliations and come up with varied opinions. The most striking revelation is the glaring difference between ethnicity and race; whereby ethnicity is more solid and can be proven while racial classification is losing popularity due to its embarrassing genetic weakness. The concept of ethnicity is built on a strong foundation of several features such as language, religion, culture, and pigmentation while race is founded on a shaky ground claiming pigmentation as its foundational support. When seeking to avoid conflicts resulting from ethnic differences, it is important to formulate policies that encourage exclusivity since it is evident that ethnic lines are drawn by policies and factors that are unfavorable to one group while more favorable to the other. 

References 

Albert, R., Schneeweis, A., & Knobbe, I. (2005). Strengthening, hiding or relinquishing ethnic identity in response to threat: Implications for intercultural relations . Intercultural Communication Studies, 14 (1), 107. 

Caselli, F., & Li, W. J. C. (2006). On the theory of ethnic conflict (No. w12125). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. w12125. https://ssrn.com/abstract=893780 Retrieved Oct. 7, 2018, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12125.pdf 

Cederman, L., E., Wimmer, A. & Min, B. (2010). Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis. World Politics , 62(1): 87-119. 

Chandra, K. (Ed.). (2012).  Constructivist theories of ethnic politics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Denny, E. K., & Walter, B. F. (2014). Ethnicity and civil war.  Journal of Peace Research, 51 (2), 199-212. 

Kalyvas, S. N. (2005). Ethnic defection in the civil war: prepared for the presentation at the Conference on Alien Rule and its Discontents. The University of Washington , pp. 1-25. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2018, from http://faculty.washington.edu/hechter/KalyvasPaper.pdf. 

Kaufmann, E. (2012). Primordialists and constructionists: a typology of theories of religion.  Religion, Brain & Behavior ,  2 (2), 140-160. 

Kukic, L. (2016). The Last Yugoslavs: Ethnic diversity, national identity, and economic outcomes . LSE. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2018, from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/KUKIC/Kukic_LastYugoslavs.pdf 

Molina, L. E., Nia P. L., & Sidanius, J. (2015). National and ethnic identity in the face of discrimination: Ethnic minority and majority perspectives. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2), 225-236 

Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well ‐ being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues,  57 (3), 493-510. 

Posner, D. (2004). The implications of constructivism for studying the relationship between ethnic diversity and economic growth. Unpublished working paper, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2018, from http://web.mit.edu/posner/www/papers/CAEG_chapter.pdf 

Santos, C E. & Uma ñ a-Taylor A. J. (2015). Studying ethnic identity: methodological and conceptual approaches across disciplines . New York, NY: American Psychological Association. 

Santos, D. J. D. S., Palomares, N. B., Normando, D., & Quintã o, C. C. A. (2010). Race versus ethnicity: Differing for better application.  Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 15 (3), 121-124. 

Sidanius, J., & Petrocik, J. R. (2000, February). Ethnicity and National Identity: A Comparison of Three Perspectives. In  conference Re-Thinking Democracy in the New Millennium. Houston, Texas. Retrieved Oct. 7, 2018, from http://www.uh.edu/democracy/sidaniust.pdf 

Yang, P. Q. (2000). Ethnic studies: Issues and approaches. New York, NY: SUNY Press.